Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
in the united states -- which is part of what's going to keep us growing and keep us innovative -t companies are strongly incentivized to do that. making sure that their expensing accelerated business depreciation is happening in 2011, so that if companies are sort of sitting on the sidelines right now, not sure whether they should invest, let's give them incentive to go ahead and invest now to give that a jumpstart. on infrastructure, we've got a highway bill that traditionally is done every six years. and what we're saying is let's ramp up what we're doing, let's beef it up a little bit -- because we've got this infrastructure all across the country that everybody from governors to mayors to economists to engineers of all political stripes have said is holding us back in terms of our long-term competitiveness -- let's get started now rebuilding america. and in terms of paying for some of these things, let's stop giving tax breaks to companies that are shipping jobs overseas, let's stop incentivizing that. let's give tax breaks to companies that are investing right here in the united states
to deal, even with current law, one is to make sure that we can use our accountability law and our anti-dumping law, and our import safety laws to make sure they are protected from both on fair trade practices and surges from china in imports. we are losing -- we are using those laws very effectively. we have a right, under the wto, secondly, to make sure that when china is doing something else in china that limits our excess or unfairly discriminates, we can take them to the wto and get them to stop those practices. we're using the very effectively. we have a long way to go. we are having an portent debate , region and partisan debate, not about the object -- and the important debate, not about the objective, but what additional sets of tools we can use. many of these practices have more adverse effects on other trading partners. we will try to use all those tools, and work with you and your colleagues to see if we can find better approaches. >> i appreciate your answers, and i encourage you to look at the currency reform for their trade act. with that, i will yield to the chairman. >>
. this is what you do. you get a cross-section. you use certain techniques. thes is no different than surveys in terms of methodologies that the surveys you read all of the time. if it is our true that our survey does not represent the pulte -- the population, then a new survey does either. regarding the question about civil unions, i think that is a very interesting question. many people say i am opposed to marriage. that conveys and means something different. there is a difference between marriage and a civil union. one difference is a very simple one. if you are married, you are in a different tax rate because you are a married couple. if you are in a civil union you are not. ironically, in many cases not being married is a financially beneficial. ironically, by not allowing same-sex couples to get married we are not getting the same taxes from them that we would get. about the 2% vs. the 98%, it has never been a question of what is the largest percentage of people and just benefiting them. the united states has always been concerned about both those with power and those without power. we
this is a letter we got from maxim u.s. we're federal services. experts on appeals. medicare hired us to review this file and decide if the partd plan made the correct decision. we work for medicare. we do not work for part-d plan. we appealed and my wife won wholly. so the administrative law judge process. maxim u.s. has appealed that a decision and they say according to the term medically accepted indication includes only fda uses and those off dated uses supported by citation on one of the listed drugs. more over, medically accepted indication does not including treating physician testimony or proffer of medical efforts showing a drug as prescribed effectively treats the condition for which it's being used. converse easily could have included expert testimony as a source material for determining medically accepted uses if he wanted to do so. instead congress by reference to a drugs fda label and expert opinions in one of several drug. accordingly. medical accept the use is not the same as medically necessary. >> i would like to, we worked on issues like that so. we could be of help to you.
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4